If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think Reagan's Presidency offered a lot of good and a lot of bad. However, I also believe that the policies of his administration probably contributed more to the economic weakness of the US today than the policies of any other President with the possible exception of GWB. His was the Presidency that launched to belief that deficits were not a problem if done to reduce taxes or increase military spending. His policies led directly to bankrupting the Saving & Loan industry and undermining the financial stability of private pension plans that continue to be bailed out be taxpayers as a consequence. Linked to this, his administration's policies helped stimulate a wild west style of corporate management in which the long term future value of a company was sacrificed without thought to achieve short-term gains and the bonuses that went with them. These factors continue to haunt us today and are truly a core part of the Reagan legacy.

Let's not forget the Democratic hero, Clinton. Clinton was the one who ordered FNMA to loosen up loan qualifications so that just about anyone could qualify for a home mortgage if they wanted it. That was the ongoing practice that helped artificially inflate real estate prices due to a very strong buyer demand. Then once the market was loaded with people who couldn't afford those mortgages, the bubble burst.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

Note the failed argument he made that our invasion of Iraq proves they were linked to 911.

Nobody can be this dense. That just leaves intentionally obtuse. But I'll try one more time....

I said that without 9/11 there wouldn't have been an invasion of Iraq.

That statement does not mean or have anything to do with whether Iraq/Saddam had some/any culpability for 9/11.

It means exactly what it says...nothing more/nothing less. Wrap your mind around all these:

Without 9/11 there'd be no Patriot Act, right?
Without 9/11 the Twin Towers would still be standing, right?
Without 9/11 3,000 less Americans would have died on that day, right?
Without 9/11 there would have been no invasion of Afghanistan, right?
See how that works? It's really not that hard to understand, is it? Now let's add:
Without 9/11 there would have been no invasion of Iraq
Capece?

Perhaps you can try to make the argument that Bush wanted to/would have/could have lead Congress and the American people to invade Iraq if 9/11 had not occurred. Be forewarned, though. You're going to look silly if you try.

Nobody can be this dense. That just leaves intentionally obtuse. But I'll try one more time....

I said that without 9/11 there wouldn't have been an invasion of Iraq.

That statement does not mean or have anything to do with whether Iraq/Saddam had some/any culpability for 9/11.

It means exactly what it says...nothing more/nothing less. Wrap your mind around all these:

Without 9/11 there'd be no Patriot Act, right?
Without 9/11 the Twin Towers would still be standing, right?
Without 9/11 3,000 less Americans would have died on that day, right?
Without 9/11 there would have been no invasion of Afghanistan, right?
See how that works? It's really not that hard to understand, is it? Now let's add:
Without 9/11 there would have been no invasion of Iraq
Capece?

Perhaps you can try to make the argument that Bush wanted to/would have/could have lead Congress and the American people to invade Iraq if 9/11 had not occurred. Be forewarned, though. You're going to look silly if you try.

You still fail to connect the dots in any logical fashion. So you create a list of reasonable assumptions. What the Sam Hill is your point? Bush/Cheney were set on a war in Iraq, even prior to 9-11. And how do the events of 911 justify the invasion of Iraq, any more than they do the invasion of Chile? You're flapping in the breeze.

I am curious, how do you think the current administrations policies will affect future economic strength or weakness??

Just askin'.....

RK

I think the jury's out on that, and it depends largely on what he does in the balance of his term. Given where we started, I think we are now much better off than we would have been with a McCain Presidency. However, unless the administration is able to shift gears to reflect the change in the economy -- which means concentrating more and more on reducing the deficit while continuing to push job growth (for which I believe an extension of the health plan is critical), the current administration could be almost as bad for the economy as the last. Unfortunately, the alternatives being put forward by the Republican leadership are even worse.

Bush/Cheney were set on a war in Iraq, even prior to 9-11. Let's pretend your looney bullsh!t is correct and that before 9/11 Bush/Cheney were looking to invade Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened how would they have convinced anyone in Congress to authorize an invasion of Iraq? How would they have convinced most Americans to support an invasion?. And how do the events of 911 justify the invasion of Iraq, any more than they do the invasion of Chile? I have not said one word about justification for invasion. That's an entirely different argument. You're flapping in the breeze. That's high praise from the Gum Flapper In Chief.

If you want to explain how Bush could have gotten authorization from Congress to invade Iraq without the context of 9/11 then I'm all ears. Anything else is just more of the obtuse bullsh!t you pull out of your arse whenever you're getting your hat handed to you in a discussion and looking to change the subject. Buh-bye.

(CBS) A year ago, Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.

We had a discussion prior to POTUS about the low quality of Bush 43 appointees. O'Neill was a prime example, what has he done since writing the book no one other than yourself may have read.

But do us all a favor - The last three POTUS who wore an R behind their name had, IMO, declining quality in their cabinets. Why don't you post those cabinets, a chance do something on your own without being spoon fed & we'll discuss. This thread is supposedly about Reagan, IMO one who got his job from AUH20's pioneering effort, & forgot what his veto pen was supposed to do.

I've worked a lot for large corporations, there are those whose established reputation was going against the grain. Some show success, generally they are individuals who have little to offer, which was my opinion of O'Neill. But Bush 43 never did have a Treasury Secy worth his salt.

If you want to explain how Bush could have gotten authorization from Congress to invade Iraq without the context of 9/11 then I'm all ears. Anything else is just more of the obtuse bullsh!t you pull out of your arse whenever you're getting your hat handed to you in a discussion and looking to change the subject. Buh-bye.

Not quite Hew. You're arguing a flawed line of reasoning. MY point is that there was no justification for the invasion, as listed by the Cheney administration. You are making some non-sensical claim that the means justify the end. Like my example said, our invasion does not justify the invasion. THAT is my point. If you want to chase down some non-related what-ifs, go right ahead. I'll concede all those points to you...I have neither the time nor inclination to waste on an illogical argument. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle, too. There, you happy? But it still doesn't justify the invasion of Iraq. And THAT, my friend, is the point here. End.

We had a discussion prior to POTUS about the low quality of Bush 43 appointees. O'Neill was a prime example, what has he done since writing the book no one other than yourself may have read.

.

After President Gerald Ford lost the 1976 election, O'Neill took an executive job at International Paper in New York City. He was vice president of the company from 1977 to 1985 and president from 1985 to 1987.
In 1988, he was approached by President George H. W. Bush to be Secretary of Defense. O'Neill declined, but recommended Dick Cheney for the position. Bush then pursued O'Neill to chair an advisory group on education that included Lamar Alexander, Bill Brock, and Richard Riley. Under O'Neill's leadership, the group recommended national standards and unified testing standards.
O'Neill was chairman and CEO of the Pittsburgh industrial giant Alcoa from 1987 to 1999, and retired as chairman at the end of 2000. His reign was extremely successful, as the company's revenues increased from $1.5 billion in 1987 to $23 billion in 2000 and O'Neill's personal fortune grew to $60 million.
In 1995, O'Neill was made chairman of the RAND Corporation.

Maybe after all that, and then working for a failed administration, he retired?

Not quite Hew. You're arguing a flawed line of reasoning. MY point is that there was no justification for the invasion, as listed by the Cheney administration. You are making some non-sensical claim that the means justify the end. Like my example said, our invasion does not justify the invasion. THAT is my point. If you want to chase down some non-related what-ifs, go right ahead. I'll concede all those points to you...I have neither the time nor inclination to waste on an illogical argument. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle, too. There, you happy? But it still doesn't justify the invasion of Iraq. And THAT, my friend, is the point here. End.

Can you really not grasp the concept that he is trying to get through your noggin? Hew NEVER said anything about the invasion being justified. His point is that it was only possible because 9/11 happened...not justified because of 9/11. There is no way that someone with such thin skin has such a thick head.